Alexandre Boulerice

[Canada Labour Code, April 28th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who spoke this evening, and I especially want to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, for introducing Bill C-254.

This bill is very similar to others that the NDP supported in 2007, 2009 and 2011. We introduced two similar bills ourselves. I will get to that later.

We may not agree on the process or way of doing things, but we do agree on the objective, which is fundamental for any francophone in Quebec and North America. We need provisions that not only guarantee equality and equal rights, but that also ensure that the resources required to protect and defend French are allocated.

Let me remind the House that, outside Quebec, French is definitely a minority compared to the U.S. cultural behemoth, which I might even call U.S. cultural imperialism. We see this more and more with social media and the new digital platforms that are invading our lives, entering our homes and invading the lives of our children and teens. We must work together to move forward and ensure that French will be defended and not just survive, but thrive and continue to enrich our lives.

I say this in light of the many debates in Quebec about living together in harmony. We use a variety of terms and definitions. Recently, I spoke in the House about the concept of interculturalism, which is part of the NDP's statutes and bylaws. We recognize that it is a way of expressing the concept of living together in harmony that is unique to Quebec and on which everyone agrees. I remember the words of Gérard Bouchard, the well-known historian, who wrote a great book about interculturalism. He said that it contained some fundamental elements, like the idea of a common foundation. In this common foundation, there is equality between men and women. This equality applies to all citizens, male and female, regardless of the colour of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, or whether they have been here for two years or 200 years.

Then there is democracy. We have a government elected by citizens. That is a part of our fundamental values. We have representative, democratic parliamentary institutions, we have freedom of expression during election campaigns, and we have the ability to form political parties.

The third part of this common foundation is the French language as the customary language, the common language, the public language and the language of work. That brings us to the crux of the issue. I believe we have a chance to solve a problem that has been dragging on for far too long.

I think that our love and affection for the French language and our desire to preserve it were recently expressed in the House. I moved a motion to recognize the fragility and decline of the French language in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, and it was unanimously adopted by all 338 parliamentarians, including the members from all of the political parties represented here and the independent members.

We took a strong stand on this in the past, foreshadowing what we would do in the future. In 2005, the NDP adopted the Sherbrooke declaration. I will not read it in its entirety because it is dozens of pages long, but here is an excerpt: “The national character of Québec is based primarily...on: 1. a primarily Francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language”. That was a fundamental value for us, and we voted accordingly five times, on three Bloc Québécois bills and two NDP bills.

Here is why it is so important. Earlier, our Conservative Party colleague gave some statistics about the number of Quebeckers working in federally regulated businesses. We are talking about big banks, telecommunications companies, airlines and shipping companies, among others. We could bicker about the statistics, but a large percentage of them already apply the spirit, if not the letter, of the Charter of the French Language. What we want to avoid is inequity when it comes to the language rights of workers.

Right now, there is a two-tier system where most Quebeckers are covered by the Charter of the French Language, but about 10% of the workforce is not, because it is not recognized.

The NDP protects and promotes the French language throughout Quebec and across the rest of Canada in francophone minority communities.

However, we also stand up for the rights of workers. Our political party was founded largely by the union movement and the labour movement, so working conditions and workers' rights are very important to us.

There is a bizarre situation that has existed for several years. Employees of Caisses Desjardins have the right to work in French and to communicate with their employer in French. Of course, that would not normally be a problem. However, people who work for the big Canadian banks do not enjoy the same rights and are not entitled to the same protections. A manager, assistant manager, department, new employer or new boss at a bank could suddenly decide to send their emails in English and hold their meetings in English. If that happened, it would be hard for employees to assert their rights because the Charter of the French Language does not apply to their employer and they have no recourse under the Official Languages Act or the Canada Labour Code.

The NDP has chosen to take a slightly different approach to this. Our desire to stand up for the French language stems from the right of all workers to have similar access, recourse and defences.

This bill could give rise to a problem. I heard my colleague from the Conservative Party say earlier that we should not be afraid because it would probably not happen, but if provincial language laws are allowed to take precedence over the Official Languages Act, there could be cases where the language rights of francophones outside Quebec are violated. I mentioned this concern earlier when I asked a question, and it has been raised by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. Obviously, that is not what we want to happen.

It might be much simpler and safer for the Canada Labour Code to give Quebec workers the same protections laid out in Quebec's Charter of the French Language without compromising the potential recourse available under the Official Languages Act to minority francophones.

As the member for Beauport—Limoilou said, it would be despicable to use a debate on this issue to make things worse for minority francophones. I share her concern, and I would be just as angry if that happened, so I would like us to be prudent as we seek to achieve the greatest possible benefit while minimizing unintended consequences and negative outcomes.

Getting back to the issue of protecting French, I am coming up on 10 years as an MP, and I want to remind the House that, in recent years, the NDP has fought for greater recognition and protection for French. I talked about the motion that was unanimously adopted a few months ago.

I also want to remind everyone that the NDP introduced a bill requiring all officers of Parliament to be bilingual. That bill was passed. Officers of Parliament include the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General. That progress came about thanks to the NDP's initiative.

For years we have been calling for Supreme Court justices to be bilingual, to be able to understand and speak French. We believe it is part of the fundamental right to defence. In a country that has two official languages, judges on the highest court of the land should be able to understand us.

It is odd that when it comes to protecting francophone workers in federally regulated businesses, Supreme Court justices and the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it seems like the Liberals have just woken up after a 10-year nap, just in time for an election. My guess is that this might be a political calculation. The Liberals have been in power for nearly seven years. They started off with a majority government, and now they have a minority government. Despite their promise to introduce legislation to modernize the Official Languages Act, the Liberals have done nothing more than present a working document that will result in more consultations. The government just completely changed its position on the rights of francophones working in federally regulated businesses and on having bilingual justices on the Supreme Court.

We have to be cautious. Let us judge the Liberal government on its actions and on the way it votes on various bills. Let us see what it will do to save Laurentian University and the University of Sudbury in order to uphold the rights of francophones in northern Ontario.

[Canada Labour Code, April 28th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her heartfelt speech in defence of the French language.

Our party obviously agrees that Quebeckers should be able to work and communicate in French regardless of who they work for. I thank the member for pointing out that the NDP previously supported three similar versions of this bill. We introduced two bills on our own to ensure these equal rights.

However, I do want share some valid concerns from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which wonders whether the approach taken by the Bloc Québécois might open the door for other provinces to give precedence to their own provincial laws on official languages. This could ultimately undermine the rights of francophone linguistic minorities elsewhere in the country.

Would it not be wise to look at this issue from the perspective of ensuring that workers have equal rights in the workplace, regardless of whether the workplace falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction?

[April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member shares the NDP's position and that she will vote the same way we will.

The last time I checked, the two parties were in discussions. I hope they will be able to come to an agreement that will support work-life balance for all workers.

At the same time, let us be realistic. The sword of Damocles that the Liberals hung over the union's head has greatly benefited management and upset the balance at the bargaining table.

Because of the Liberal government's bad decisions, then, there is not much reason for hope.

[April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and his comments.

Indeed, we are once again seeing the Liberals and Conservatives working together to undermine a fundamental right and the Quebec labour movement.

Daniel Boyer, president of the FTQ; Marc Ranger, director of CUPE Quebec; and Denis Bolduc, general secretary of the FTQ, spoke out today about the right of workers to take job action and to strike.

Sadly, the Liberals seem to think this fundamental right is a theoretical one. The right to strike means nothing if the government is going to keep shoving special legislation down workers' throats—using time allocation, no less.

That is what the Liberals are doing today, and it is shameful.

[April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting theoretical question. I look forward to being the labour minister to be able to answer the parliamentary secretary.

In turn, I would like to ask him if there are circumstances in which the Liberal government would not join forces with management to trample and violate workers' rights, for once.

Are there circumstances in which the Liberal Party would stand up for workers?

[April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it gives me no pleasure to rise in the House to speak to not only a closure motion, but closure on a bill that violates the fundamental rights of workers. It is not a good day for our democratic life or our parliamentary life.

It was almost 10 years ago that I was first elected to the House to represent the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I remember quite well that the first battle we fought as an NDP team with Jack Layton was on back-to-work legislation for Canada Post, and once again we defended the rights of workers. A Conservative government was in power and it was violating the rights of postal workers. Ten years later, I am still standing in the House defending the rights of workers, which are now being trampled by a Liberal government.

This is proof positive that, when it comes time to take a stand, the government, whether blue or red, always sides with the employers, the bosses, the richest people in our society. It never sides with ordinary Canadians and with the workers who are just trying to improve their lives, to get by and to pay the bills. They simply want a chance to improve their living and working conditions.

I want to take a moment to remind everyone that social progress does not appear out of thin air. Social progress happens when there are men and women who join forces, organize and take action together, collectively, to change the ground rules and improve society in order to create more respect, justice and equality. This is done through various avenues, including community associations, citizens' groups, the women's movement and the environmental movement. There are a lot of things going on in our society, and there have been for a long time. There is also the labour movement, and we have come a long way in this area.

Unions were illegal in Canada until 1872. It was not just difficult to unionize. It was illegal. Workers had to fight for their rights and to improve their working conditions. They had to fight to go from poverty and exploitation to a situation where they were able to earn a decent living, support their families and have some hope for the future by building a legacy that would help their children to have a better life.

Labour laws and laws governing minimum wage, labour contracts and collective agreements did not appear out of thin air. People got together and said that enough was enough. They decided that they were going to use pressure tactics to fight for better working conditions. Overall, it has worked fairly well. If we compare 19th century working conditions with those of today, it is clear that progress has been made. Much of that progress comes from workers obtaining the right and the option to use pressure tactics and to make demands to improve their situation.

I have been saying this for years, and I will say it again. The Liberals say they are standing up for the middle class and those seeking to join it, but I would remind the Liberal government that much of the middle class owes its existence to the labour movement in our society. Broadly speaking, the middle class and the creation of unions, be it in municipalities, public services or private enterprise, go hand in hand. People fought to bring about what is essentially a middle class whose members can afford to buy a house, to buy a car, an electric one, ideally, and to go on vacation when travel is allowed.

Over time, the bargaining process has been fine-tuned. There have been ups and downs. Some years have been good for unions, others not so much. That is all part of the balance of power, but attempts have been made to create rules that are good for everyone, that level the playing field at the bargaining table and establish a framework for relationships that can sometimes be tense and adversarial, while remaining civilized.

Let us not forget that the union movement and workers relinquished the possibility of triggering a strike at any time, which was a historic concession. Now there is a process to be followed, notices to be given, laws to be obeyed and so forth.

In the case of the Port of Montreal, this process was meticulously followed and even resulted in a truce that lasted several weeks last year. The workers wanted to defend their working conditions—especially their schedules, which I will come back to—and did so by following the rules.

Once again, the Liberal government is using a bazooka or a sledgehammer to deprive workers at the Port of Montreal of their bargaining power. I find that mind-boggling. All last week, union leaders said that if the port authority stopped meddling with their schedules and provided job security, they would not go on strike, they would stop using pressure tactics and they would return to the bargaining table to come up with a freely negotiated solution.

Before the unlimited general strike could even be called at the Port of Montreal, the Liberal Minister of Labour announced that special legislation would be introduced to force dockworkers back to work in the event of such a strike. The general strike had not even been called, but the government had already sent the employer the message that it could sit idly by and do nothing because, in any case, the government would be there to help, after having tilted the balance of power away from the union and the workers.

This Liberal government claims to be a friend of workers and of the labour movement of Canada, but every chance it gets, it sides with the employer and upsets the balance at the bargaining table. That balance, however, is a constitutional right, since the Supreme Court in 2015 ruled in a Saskatchewan case that the right to call a strike and use pressure tactics is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why are the Liberals addicted to special legislation? Why do they attack workers at every opportunity? What is more, the Port of Montreal is doing well. It is not a company that is struggling, that is on the verge of bankruptcy or that is unable to fulfill its obligations. On the contrary, business is booming at the Port of Montreal, and so there is no reason for a labour dispute there. Why does the employer want so much flexibility and the ability to meddle with the work schedules of dockworkers? I do not understand that at all. There is no financial or economic reason to justify it.

Speaking of economic impacts, it is clear that pressure tactics have repercussions. That is part of the rules of the game. That is how our labour relations system is built. It enables workers to put pressure on the employer to force the employer back to the bargaining table so that a mutually acceptable compromise can be reached. That is how it works, and usually it works well, when there is no special legislation. The Port of Montreal is profitable. People need to know that and it needs to be said.

The other important thing that I found particularly inappropriate was the misinformation being spread by the Minister of Labour. She says the government is worried. She says port operations must continue because we are in the midst of a pandemic and medicines and public health are important.

Whenever there were labour disputes in the past, the dock workers' union has always made it very clear that medical supplies, goods destined for hospitals and items used to care for people would be unloaded and transferred even during an unlimited general strike. I think that is worth saying again and again, because people need to know that the strike will in no way jeopardize public health.

The Liberals are once again giving a huge advantage to management. Lucky thing both parties are still at the bargaining table. Let us hope that a solution will be negotiated before this devastating bill is passed in the House.

Again we are seeing the Liberals and Conservatives walking hand in hand when it comes to violating the union rights of workers. In fact, and I think my colleague from Windsor West mentioned it, the use of such draconian parliamentary or legislative tools could spoil labour relations at the Port of Montreal for years to come. The Liberal government will bear some responsibility for that.

[April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. There is a lot we agree on.

Why does he think the Conservative and Liberal governments, which are one and the same on this issue, systematically use special legislation, back-to-work legislation, that dashes workers' hopes of having their rights respected and having truly free collective bargaining?

[April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to repeat what my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville said, and that is that drugs and other COVID-19-related items are still being unloaded at the Port of Montreal, which means that the strike does not pose a threat to the health and safety of the public. It is important to remind people of that because there is a lot of misinformation circulating in that regard, and unfortunately, the Liberal minister is partly responsible for that.

[April 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her speech.

On the matter of defending workers' rights, we are on the same wavelength.

In her view, what is the meaning of the Liberal government's abusive and systematic use of special legislation that tips the scales at the negotiating table and always favours management?

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, April 27th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a very simple question for him.

We agree that the principle of Bill C-12 on climate accountability is a step in the right direction. In fact, Jack Layton introduced a bill along those lines in 2006. However, there is a lot missing from Bill C-12. The government wants to conduct assessments and produce reports every five years, but, for the Liberals, “in five years” means 2030. The year 2025 does not exist. We do not know why the Liberals are putting this off for practically a decade.

What does my Conservative Party colleague think about the fact that government is putting off Parliament's responsibilities?